SUPPORTING PUBLIC SPEAKERS ONLINE: A VIRTUAL SPEAKING CENTER INTERVENTION

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed changes in workplace and classroom communication, forcing immediate adaption to online video-conferencing with limited preparation. Through a multi-step survey, this study investigates student perceptions of their preparedness for presenting online speeches and the gaps in their competencies; uses best practices from the public sector to create a targeted speaking center intervention with the goal of aiding students in effective online communication; and collects data about high communication apprehensives (CAs) and high computer-mediated communication apprehensives (CMCAs) and their interaction with video-conferencing platforms. This study hypothesizes that if computer-mediated communication skills (CMC skills) share a negative relationship with communication apprehension in online environments (CMCA), then high CAs and CMCAs, when provided with a targeted intervention to increase their CMC skills, will experience a significant increase in preparedness for online public speaking following the intervention. The results of the surveys revealed that CAs and CMCAs were significantly correlated groups who identified higher levels of need in support for their online presentations before the intervention and reported a greater positive change in their preparedness as a result of the intervention. The significant increase in overall preparedness for online public speaking across the sample ultimately suggests the intervention’s effectiveness and promise as a model for future speaking center workshops.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced most educational institutions to radically change their practices with limited preparation time. In distance classrooms, teachers and students alike navigated new territory, negotiated altered course outcomes, and jumped unfamiliar digital hurdles. Higher education institutions in particular were forced to be agile in the face of a massive retention threat with the potential for severe financial repercussions. Thus, administration, faculty, and academic support staff were required to produce creative solutions to triaging and meeting remote students' needs.
In 2020, with some institutions completely remote and others offering hybrid courses, higher education learned how to apply widespread pandemic pedagogy. In the area of academic support, where tutoring services' primary work is to meet the specific needs of the student body and curriculum, services must match shifting needs not only to aid in retention but also to ensure their longevity. Speaking centers which are relatively new to the academic support scene need to update their practices for changing speakingassignment formats and to fit into distance learning environments. Reimagining best practices, both in types of services and areas of support, is imperative for speaking centers to move toward supporting online oratory. Beyond meeting the needs of students in their online classroom environments where public speaking has morphed into something new, speaking centers also play an integral role in preparing students for the post-COVID-19 workplace that awaits them after graduation.
According to a study by Stanford economist Bloom (2020), the new norm of working from home will likely continue in part even after COVID-19 conditions have improved (as cited in Wong, 2020). In June of 2020, Bloom found that 42% of the American workforce was working from home with another 33% not working at all, leaving only 26% (mostly essential workers) in their usual physical workspace (as cited in Wong, 2020). Dingel and Neiman (2020) investigated the work-from-home landscape further by classifying the feasibility and possibility of the continuation of working from home across occupations post-pandemic. Their findings reveal that in the United States, 37% of jobs are conducive to working entirely from home and will likely continue to allow their workers the flexibility to work from home at least a few days a week even as the effects of the pandemic have lessened (Dingel & Neiman, 2020). This data illustrates that online meetings, presentations, and other forms of workplace communication will likely continue to occur at least semi-regularly through online platforms even after the pandemic. Furthermore, virtual college classrooms and speaking centers are uniquely positioned to prepare students for another aspect of their future workplaces by recognizing that online platforms like Zoom, Google Hangouts, and Webex are here to stay and developing curriculums that integrate and optimize best virtual communication practices.
As of October 2020, when this research began, The Chronicle of Higher Education (2020) reported that out of 3,000 colleges, only 4% offered fully in-person classes with most primarily or fully online (44%). As a result of higher education institutions serving students primarily online during this point in time, academic support centers like speaking centers needed to meet students in online spaces as well. It is clear that in the writing center field, online services, both synchronous and asynchronous, have been offered for years (Bell, 2016;Neaderhiser & Wolfe, 2009;Denny, 2016;Paiz, 2018; To conclude their discussion of digital communication spaces and online rhetorical strategies, McGloin and Coletti (2019) call on collegiate speaking centers to monitor industry trends and prepare students for the demands of their future professional workspaces. They highlight this opportunity while also recognizing the potential challenges: Existing communication centers will need to determine the capacity and resources that they (initially) have available to allow them to start serving requests for training and coaching related to the delivery of digital presentations. While existing centers are well positioned to integrate the new digital foundations and pedagogy, they must also identify both physical and digital space for which the training can take place. (McGloin & Coletti, 2019 , p.51)

An Opportunity for Collegiate Speaking Centers
While speaking centers are uniquely positioned to prepare students for this changing communication environment, both professionally and socially, even before they enter the workplace, they may not be fully prepared for the challenge. In their descriptive overview of communication centers in the United States, LeFebvre et al. (2017) gathered data from 47 speaking centers to learn more about their structures, services, and practices. LeFebvre et al. (2017) found that the top four most common services offered across speaking centers are focused on speech outlining (15%), delivery practice and feedback (12.9%), organization of speech (10.7%), and video practice (10.7%). Only 20% of this sample of speaking centers offered e-tutoring, which is most likely explained by how very few communications or speaking centers reported the technology to sustain etutoring. LeFebvre et al. (2017) identify this gap in technology and e-tutoring services to suggest that "centers could provide training for enhancing visual communication skills that support students and faculty in the digital age" (p. 446). The gap in e-tutoring and multimodal communication coaching in speaking centers warrants development as classrooms and workplaces make moves online.
Because speaking center scholarship has yet to fully investigate practices of speaking centers in the digital environment, McIntyre & Hall (2017) borrow from writing center scholarship to search for advantages and disadvantages of asynchronous and synchronous online tutoring and peer coaching services. In online writing labs, writing consultants strive to replicate face-to-face tutorials by fostering collaborative virtual spaces using text-chats or email in both live and written feedback formats (McIntyre & Hall, 2017). In another branch of their research, McIntyre & Hall (2017) use survey data and analysis of speaking center websites to learn that only 21 out of 135 speaking centers included online support in their services and only 23% of those centers used both synchronous and asynchronous formats. In terms of platforms, 100% of centers offering online services utilized email; 80% used online conferencing such as Zoom, Webex, or Google Hangout; and 40% uploaded videos on YouTube or Vimeo for asynchronous feedback. Further, 91% of these centers offered real-time conferencing focused on rehearsal feedback (73%), visual aid support (64%), written documents, and outlines/organization (45%) (McIntyre & Hall, 2017). An important limitation of this data, however, is that it was collected more than three years ago, before most institutions were forced to move to distance learning. Like many academic support services, speaking centers' primary work is to support students with supplemental, individualized, one-on-one support. For speaking centers, this work often includes help with public speaking anxiety and communication apprehension. New research shows, however, that this goal may require first meeting students where they are-in the classroom. To introduce embedded support in the classroom, virtual or otherwise, collaboration with faculty and other support services is essential. McCall et al. (2017) explores the benefits of collaboration in a basic communication course with a triad of support for public-speaking students including the course instructor, the library, and the communication center. In this course, students were tasked with developing a persuasive round-table discussion on a controversial topic, requiring extensive research and persuasive speaking skills (McCall et al., 2019).
Together, the speaking center, library, and course instructor created collaborative workshops in the classroom focused on research, public speaking, and speech preparation. They then surveyed the students to assess the workshops. Their findings confirmed that students needed to be exposed to these services in the classroom in order to feel comfortable seeking one-on-one support outside of the classroom. Additionally, they found that students who experienced high communication apprehension reported that the collaborative and dynamic nature of support helped guide them on what they needed most and where to start, helping ease their doubts (McCall et al., 2017).

Communication Apprehension and Public Speaking Anxiety
The field of communication apprehension (CA) studies is highly developed and offers insight into traditional and computer-mediated public speaking anxiety. In his quest to better understand the correlation between suicide and enrollment in public speaking courses during his tenure at Penn State University, the seminal scholar of communication apprehension, McCroskey (1970) discovered two distinct types of CA, trait-based and situational-based. Trait-based CA is a consistent level of fear and anxiety, while situational or context-based CA is associated with variables and not consistent to the communicator (Harris, Sawyer, & Behnke, 2006). McCroskey (1997) relates the two traits to public speaking anxiety when he writes: Individual traits (trait-based) are relatively enduring over time, whereas (contextbased) states are highly variable. Applying this to the common problem of stage fright, a person may be generally apprehensive about giving speeches and thus will experience considerable anxiety when forced into giving a speech. Another person may generally enjoy and not fear giving speeches. However, if that person is asked to give a speech on television with insufficient time to prepare, [they] may experience a comparable amount of anxiety. (p. 192) To extend this example into the context of video-based public speaking, another individual may enjoy public speaking in the classroom, and perhaps even be a part of debate club, but become apprehensive when asked to present a 5-minute speech to their classmates on Zoom. Alternatively, another student may struggle with public speaking in face-to-face settings, but thrive on computer-mediate platforms like Zoom, making presentations in this medium less threatening spaces for them to communicate.
To help identify high CAs, McCroskey (1970) developed several measures for assessing communication apprehension, including the 24-item Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24). This measure is made up of four subscales (group discussion, meetings, interpersonal, and public speaking), each with 6-items formatted as 5-option, Likert-type questions particular to that context of communication apprehension (as cited in McCroskey, 1997). The subscales can be scored together or separately to examine various aspects of communication apprehension. This test has stood the test of time with high reliability and validity. This tool is helpful for assessing the starting points of students in public speaking courses, but has not been applied extensively to public speaking in computer-mediated environments like videoconferencing.

Computer-mediated Communication
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) includes any form of communication that relies on the internet as its primary channel for sending and receiving messages and feedback (Brown et al., 2004). In one of the earliest conversations about speaking centers and online services, Davis (2012) outlines the advantages of implementing CMC, pointing out that convenience, increased productivity of consultations, increased accessibility, and decreased anxiety were the primary benefits. Seven years before McGloin and Colletti (2019) called for speaking centers to change their practices to meet online needs, Davis (2012) highlighted this same opportunity to prepare the next generation for the workplace and increase their value as organization employees. Davis (2012), as an early believer in the power of online speaking center services, characterized online tutoring platforms as lower stress environments with the power to reduce fear and interaction anxiety. While Davis's (2012) findings are noteworthy, they may be somewhat contrary to today's discussion of online speaking center services. The low-stress, alternative environment depicted by Davis (2012) was often text-based through email or chat function services rather than video conferencing. Most importantly, it was also meant primarily to prepare students for face-to-face speeches; however, if the speaker's stage has shifted to an online platform, that online environment may no longer be a "safer" or alternative space.
In fact, new research out of the Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab suggests that prolonged videoconferencing causes Zoom fatigue and may trigger a fight-or-flight response (Bailenson, 2021). In an interview with Business Insider about this emerging research, Bailenson (2021) said, "The brain is particularly attentive to faces, and when we see large ones, we interpret them as being close. Our 'fight-or-flight' reflex responds" (as cited in Keyaira, 2021, para 3). Bailenson went on to say that "from an evolutionary standpoint, if there was a very large human face close by to you, and it was staring right in your eyes, you were likely going to engage in conflict or mating. Neither responses are a good fit for a work meeting (as cited in Keyaira, 2021, para 6).
In his full report, "Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue," Bailenson (2021) outlines four central arguments for why the Zoom interface leads to nonverbal overload and may be causing psychological consequences.
First, as previously discussed, the intensity of large faces and eyes displayed on screen and at a close distance is unnatural. Second, monitoring one's own appearance and nonverbal behavior continuously while being engaged in communication with others is exhausting and leads to negative emotional consequences (Bailenson, 2021). Third, video chats limit users' mobility which can reduce cognitive functioning. Fourth, cognitive overload is likely to occur in Zoom settings where users' work must continuously interpret and send signals using the many tools of Zoom-general framing of self and others, exaggerated nods or other gestures, chat functions, emoticon reactions, and subtitles (Bailenson, 2021). While the fatigue and fight-or-flight responses caused by Zoom are not measured in the study design that follows, this emerging research further suggests the importance of considering the relationship between computer-mediated platforms and communication apprehension. This new research from Stanford demonstrates that Zoom as a computer-mediated platform presents new cognitive challenges that may add to the communication stresses of those who are already apprehensive public speakers.

CMC Communication Apprehension
The relationship between communication apprehension and computer-mediated communication platforms has been highly debated, with multiple models developed to explain its relationship to generalized computer anxiety and traditional communication apprehension. As early researchers, Brown et al. (2004) defined computer-mediated communication anxiety/apprehension (CMCA) as "an individual's level of fear or apprehension associated with actual or anticipated use of information technology to communicate with others" (p. 83). In their conceptual model of CMCA (as seen in figure   1), Brown et al. (2004) suggested that general anxiety related to CMC (in their case, within the context of email usage) consisted of both computer anxiety and communication apprehension. CMCA is then influenced by that general anxiety as well as CMC familiarity. In their model, CMCA also influenced overall attitude toward use and usage behavior as outcome variables (Brown et al., 2004).  Brown et al. (2004), define CMC familiarity as "a combination of knowledge, understanding, and amount of time an individual has had experiencing something" and hypothesize that CMC familiarity will have a negative effect on CMCA (p. 86). To measure this variable, they used a subset of only 4 items to assess CMC familiarity: "I am very knowledgeable about email," "I understand how to use email," "I have a lot of experience using email," and "overall I believe I am very familiar with email" (Brown et al., 2004, p. 90). Brown et al. (2004)'s findings supported their hypothesis; CMC familiarity shared a statistically significant negative relationship with CMCA (p= -0.22, p< .01) and a highly significant positive relationship with usage (p= 0.21, p< .001). While this research is foundational to understanding CMCA and its relationship to familiarity, the use of email as the driving CMC in question seems simplistic compared to a multichanneled, complex, high-context platform like video-conferencing.
In a later study, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) created a similar but more detailed model which interrogated the relationship between communication apprehension, CMC skill, and CMC presence. The main CMC platforms examined in this study were email, chatrooms, and instant messaging. One-hundred and forty-five college students from an introductory communications course were provided with a survey consisting of several sets of questions. To measure CMCA, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) used the Fear of the Physician Scale developed by Richmond et al. (2013) which is formatted like the PRCA-24 subscale with a 5-item questionnaire, containing similar questions but within the context of communicating on the different CMC platforms explored in their study. For example, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) replaced the statement, "When communicating with my physician, I feel relaxed," with "When communicating using an Internet-messaging program, I feel relaxed" (p. 367). As the measure of CMC skill, they created a variable that combined two types of efficacy, computer and internet efficacy, as well as CMC competence using tools from Spitzberg (2001) and Wrench (2004) ( as cited in Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). A central hypothesis of their study was that "both efficacy (computer and internet) and perceived CMC competence are factors that enable someone to be skillful [when] communicating using a computer" (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007, p. 365).
Affirming their hypothesis, they discovered a positive relationship between CMC skill and CMC presence as well as a negative relationship between CMC skill and CMCA (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). Their findings suggesting that proper preparation for online public speaking which aims to increase CMC skill may support high CAs in lowering their anxiety (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007).   Figure 2, CMC skill breaks down into computer efficacy, internet efficacy, and CMC competence. According to Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter (2007), "self-efficacy is not a measure of actual skill but rather a measure of an individual's perception of [their] ability to perform a specific behavior" (p. 359). With this in mind, participants have more opportunities to reflect on their CMC abilities and behaviors beyond the four-item CMC familiarity measure provided by Brown et al. (2004). While the actual study of communication competencies within different communication contexts is debated among scholars like McCroskey (1982), Rubin et al. (1993), and Wiemann (1977), not only in terms of defining the competencies themselves, but also because of the challenge presented in accurately capturing this data using perception-based measures, it is widely agreed upon that it is key to effectual communication (as cited in Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). Luckily, while the same self-reporting issue applies in collecting public speaking competency data from participants, the competencies for public speaking and video-based public speaking are more widely established.

Competency Areas for Virtual Public Speaking
The Public Speaking Competence Rubric (PSCR) provides eleven key competency areas for traditional public speaking: useful topic, engaging introduction, clear organization, well-supported ideas, closure in conclusion, clear and vivid language, suitable vocal expression, corresponding nonverbals, audience awareness, effective visual aids, and convincing persuasion (as cited in Schreiber, 2012). In the realm of online public speaking, McGloin and Coletti's (2019) toolkit for enhancing online presentations includes much of the PSCR competencies with a few reconfigurations. When used to develop resources for students preparing for online speeches, McGloin and Coletti's (2019) toolkit has the potential to break down the barriers students will face in online classroom and workplace presentations. The toolkit they offer outlines tips for use throughout the online speech process from capturing a digital audience and creating effective and accessible visuals to delivery techniques and choosing a performance space with added considerations for mostly technical factors such as lighting, visuals organization schemes, and digital audience participation options.
Another resource for online public speaking, Captovation: Online Presentations by Design by Allen and Young (2020), echoes the driving argument and central motivation of this study in its introduction: The future of presentations is here, ready or not. We feel that 2020 will forever be marked as the date when work shifted, education shifted, life shifted; in other words, the year of creative disruption. And even though conferences, meetings, and workshops may return to being offered in person eventually, we strongly believe that a 'web option' will remain prominent. (p. 9) Based on this belief, Allen and Young (2020) explore central design considerations for preparing online presentations: audience-centered design, clearly designed structure, powerfully designed visuals, setting and tech designs, designed delivery, design for continual growth, and designed participation. These considerations in combination with the PSCR competencies as well as McGloin and Coletti's (2019) toolkit were key to designing the speaking center workshop of this study and providing the basis for the content included. Borrowing from all three of these sources, the resulting workshop created by this study designed a revised measure of online presentation competency areas: engaging with the online audience, creating and using effective visuals, choosing and organizing speech content, delivering the speech fluently and effectively using the video-conferencing platform, capturing the audience's attention through the introduction, and creating a memorable moment for the audience through the conclusion.

Stepping into the Digital Support Space
With distance learning separating students from their teachers and academic supports, high CAs and CMCAs need a deeper-level of support for online public speaking and are likely to benefit from support embedded directly in their courses. (2018) found that integrated communication center support in the form of a single workshop, covering slide design and oral delivery skills, yielded significant improvements in their students' speeches overall. This type of integrated approach could be updated to support students with a particular online public speaking assignment. As instructors of public speaking courses adjust the types of public speaking assignments they ask their students to complete, they and their students will likely lean on speaking center services to support their areas of need.

Beason-Abmayr and Wilson
According to Hobgood (2015), speaking centers are adept at changing to meet the needs of students and institutions. As more students find themselves in online classrooms, their time on campus and the limitations of face-to-face activities has catalyzed this need for recalibration. Even in a post-pandemic world, the remnants of pandemic pedagogy will continue to influence learning and student support. The underdeveloped aspect of speaking center literature is about more than simply providing students access to online tutoring and speaking center interventions. Speaking centers must also ensure that they are preparing students for online communication within the workplace. In doing so, they will also discover ways to support high CAs when their public-speaking stage changes from traditional classroom settings to video-conferencing platforms.
To move towards developments in online public speaking supports, this study seeks to better understand the needs and perceptions of students who will use video-conferencing platforms for public speaking, particularly those with high levels of CA and CMCA. It also develops and assesses an integrated intervention for students working on an online speech through a pre-recorded workshop based on best practices for online public speaking. Finally, it gauges whether exposure to video-conferencing competencies and toolkits leads to changes in perceptions of preparedness for online speaking overall.
The guiding research questions and hypothesis for this study are as follows: then high CAs and CMCAs, when provided with an intervention to increase their CMC skills, will experience a significant increase in preparedness for online public speaking after a targeted intervention.

Research Design Overview
Answering the call of McGloin and Coletti (2019), this study evaluates the implementation and outcomes of a speaking center's embedded intervention focused on preparing students for public speaking in digital spaces. It uses best practices for videobased presentations from the public sector to support students in an introductory communication course, collecting pre and post data from the student workshop attendees.
It also strives to understand the needs of high CAs and CMCAs in reducing their anxiety for presenting on online platforms.

Participants
At the University of Rhode Island, the online public speaking intervention was offered to all sections of Communication Fundamentals (COM 100) (n=21) to support the informative speech assignment which occurred throughout the semester at different points depending on the instructor's course design. The pre-recorded speaking center workshop was offered to all COM 100 instructors for embedding in their learning management system (Brightspace), and instructors were encouraged to incentivize students for their participation, if possible, to allow for maximum participation. With an enrollment capacity of 25 students for each section, the participant pool was approximately 525, primarily first-year, students. Of these 525 students, the study yielded 88 participants from various sections of the core course.
Survey respondents ranged from 18 to 40 years of age with an average age of 20 years. The class standing of survey participants were as follows: 58 freshmen, 11 sophomores, 9 juniors, 5 seniors, and 6 others. There were 48 female respondents, 35 male respondents, and 6 nonbinary/ "prefer not to say" participants.
Of the total participants, 48 students indicated that their presentations would be pre-recorded asynchronously, 29 would be presented live using a video-conferencing platform, and 12 were unsure or did not respond to the question. Sixty of the participants specified that they would use Zoom to present their speech, whether live or pre-recorded, and 9 would use their cellphones to record.

Procedure
A pre-intervention survey (see Appendix B for full survey) was first used to assess students' overall feelings of preparedness for their virtual speech as well as their preparedness in several areas of online public speaking competencies. Additionally, the pre-survey included questions used to identify participants with classic CA and CMCA.
Students were also asked to assess their comfortability using video-conferencing to measure their initial perceived CMC skill (CMC self-efficacy and CMC competency).
Following the pre-survey, they watched a 20-minute recorded workshop addressing the main competencies and considerations for effective online public speaking (see Appendix E for outline of full intervention workshop). Finally, after watching the workshop, participants completed a post-survey. The post-survey (see Appendix C for the full survey) asked similar questions to the pre-survey to look for changes in student perception about their preparedness for presenting an online speech, particularly within the high CA and CMCA participants. This part of the survey also included an open-ended response which asked students to share additional concerns regarding public speaking online. The pre and post surveys were created using Qualtrics and analyzed using SPSS.

Measurements
CMC self-efficacy and CMC competencies and their relationship to CMCA is investigated in the primary research of this study. Because highly developed models for CMCA (like that of Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter) are reliant on the CMC platforms in question, there is no perfect model for understanding CMCA, CMC skill, and behavioral or attitudinal outcomes in terms of video-conferencing. For the purposes of this study and understanding students' relationship with public speaking on video-conferencing platforms specifically, the model created by Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) is adapted to reflect the CMC platform in question. Because this model was created 14 years ago, and internet/computer usage has become infused in communication practices, particularly for students, computer efficacy and internet efficacy have been collapsed into a single measure for video-conferencing self-efficacy. CMCA is also measured in terms of video-conferencing only; however, competencies are measured by how prepared students feel to succeed in the five key areas of effective online speaking. Finally, rather than measuring for the final outcome of CMC presence like in the study by Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007), this survey investigated perceived preparedness overall for students' upcoming online speech, both before and after the intervention as the outcome variables in question.

Measures for Communication Apprehension
The public speaking specific sub-set items from the PRCA-24 scale were used in the pre-survey to identify classic public speaking CAs. The six classic public speaking CA items can be found in the matrix of items within question 13 of the pre-survey (see Appendix B). In the final data collection, the Cronbach's alpha value of the CA scale was greater than 0.7 at 0.708, showing it was sufficiently reliable.

Measures for Computer-mediated Communication Apprehension
High computer-mediated apprehensives (CMCAs) were identified using the measure retooled by Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) and originally created by Richmond et al. (1998) as the five-scale Fear of the Physician survey tool. Statements were changed to ask specifically about video-conferencing platforms. The five CMCA items can be found in the question 14 matrix within the pre-survey (see Appendix B). The Cronbach's alpha value of the CMC CA scale was greater than 0.7 at 0.752, showing it was also sufficiently reliable.

Measures for Video-conferencing Platform Self-efficacy
Individuals' video-conferencing self-efficacy was assessed using the measure created by Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) and adjusted to reflect videoconferencing as the CMC platform in question. The nine CMC Self-efficacy items can be found in the question 15 matrix within the pre-survey (see Appendix B).

Measures for Virtual Public Speaking Competencies
The competency items for virtual public speaking are adapted from the toolkits, rubrics, and guidelines presented by McGloin and Coletti (2019) and Allen and Young (2020) as well as the PSCR competency items. To gauge their perceived competencies, participants were asked to express, through Likert-scale questions, how prepared they were to succeed in five areas of effective public speaking: engaging with the online audience, creating and using effective visuals, choosing and organizing speech content, delivering the speech fluently and effectively using the video-conferencing platform, capturing the audience's attention through the introduction, and creating a memorable moment for the audience through the conclusion. These questions can be found in the matrix of items within question 16 of the pre-survey (see Appendix B). The competency items are also the key areas discussed in the recorded workshop intervention.
Because public speaking is the most common human fear, asking a direct question about public speaking anxiety may provide a false indication of legitimate CA in the context of public speaking. For this reason, the survey designed for the purposes of this study do not ask directly about anxiety before and after the intervention, other than to ask students if they feel more anxious to speech live or asynchronously. Because true communication apprehension is a mostly fixed trait, it is unrealistic to expect anxiety levels to change significantly in the span of 30 minutes and as a direct result of a short intervention. The resulting responses from such a question would also capture anticipatory anxiety rather than true public speaking apprehension. McCroskey (1997) points to the issue of self-reporting measures particularly in relation to competency when he writes, "Although subjects can report whether they feel competent in general or in specific settings, they are not likely in a position to know whether they are competent.
Most likely such self-reports would be influenced by the respondent's self-esteem (p.197).
The connection between preparedness and anxiety has been explored by Daly and Vangelisti (1995) who found that speech anxiety was significantly associated with a variety of preparation variables including the constraints of time, equipment, and topic.
Operating on this principle and in line with the research questions of this study, the survey phrases questions in terms of how "prepared" students feel to achieve success in the online-public speaking competency areas. Competency questions are formatted as matrix questions with five options from "very unprepared" to "very prepared," for example: "How prepared (from very unprepared to very prepared) do you feel for engaging with the online audience?" Figure 3 below is adapted from the structural-equation model developed by Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) to focus specifically on video-conferencing and virtual public speaking competencies. It provides a conceptual framework for the relationships between the variables explored in this study. Research Question 1: How prepared do students feel to present a speech on an online platform?
As seen in Figure 4, when asked about their perceptions of overall preparedness for online speaking, most participants felt "very prepared" to "prepared" (n=37) or "unsure" of their preparedness (n= 31). Accounting for 16% of the responses, 13 students shared that they felt "very unprepared" to "unprepared" for their online speech.

Figure 4. Pre-intervention Overall Preparedness for Online Presentation
The survey also asked students to compare their anxiety levels when confronted with a live, online speech versus an asynchronous, online speech. Of the 80 students who answered this question, about 65% (n= 52) chose the response "I am more anxious to present live than I am to record myself presenting;" 29% (n= 23) chose "I am equally anxious about presenting live as I am about recording myself present;" and about 6% (n= 5) chose "I am more anxious to record myself presenting than I am to present live." High CAs' mean for overall preparedness was 2.84 as compared to 3.41 for low CAs (t78 = 2.38, p = 0.021) and high CMCAs' mean for overall preparedness was 3.09 as compared to low CMCAs' mean for overall preparedness of 3.4 (t78 = 1.47, p=0.144).
These scores imply that CAs and CMCAs felt less prepared for online public speaking than their peers.

Research Question 2: What gaps do students perceive in their preparedness for
presenting an effective speech through video conferencing?
The pre-workshop survey asked students to indicate how prepared they thought they were in six different categories of online public speaking: engaging with the online audience, creating and using effective visuals, choosing and organizing speech content, delivering the speech fluently and effectively using the video-conferencing platform, capturing the audience's attention through the introduction, and creating a memorable moment for the audience through the conclusion. Out of these categories, participants were asked to choose their primary area of concern. As Table 1 demonstrates, 47.5% (n= 38) expressed that their primary concern was delivery, followed by engaging the online  participants seemed to find that the workshop covered most of their concern areas; however, two students reiterated their concern for interacting with an online audience and maintaining the audience's attention, and six participants expressed their difficulty in overcoming public speaking anxiety or employing anxiety reduction techniques such as mindful breathing. This is consistent with the nature of true public speaking CA; as McCroskey's (1997) research suggests, high communication apprehension is a static trait that will not change significantly through intervention. Still, recognizing the challenges faced by high CAs and providing additional supports are necessary to help with coping through the apprehension. The remaining qualitative responses mentioned concerns about appropriate length, technological issues, and presentation options if not using visuals.
General public speaking anxiety and the techniques for overcoming this anxiety were the only patterned responses.

Research Question 3: What effects does an integrated speaking center intervention have
on students' perceptions of preparedness for online speaking, particularly for high CAs and CMCs?
The first step to investigate the effects of the intervention was to compare the preintervention levels of overall preparedness to the post-intervention levels of overall preparedness. Prior to the workshop, the overall preparedness mean was 3.27 with a standard deviation of 0.932, and after the workshop the mean was 3.84 with a standard deviation of 7.64. (Paired sample t,72 = 4.443; p < .001). As seen in Figure 5, there was a significant increase in preparedness overall, particularly in moving those who were unsure of their preparedness to feeling prepared. This suggests that the intervention had positive effects for most participants.   Using Likert-scale responses, students were asked to react to five statements related to their feelings while speaking on video-conferencing platforms. For example, rather than the Fear of the Physician statement, "When communicating with my physician, I feel relaxed," students were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the statement, "I feel relaxed when communicating using video-conferencing for public speaking." As illustrated in Figure 8, the overall score calculations from this data set ranged from 1.6 to 5.0 with a mean of 3.45. Again, the top 20% of participants in this data set were identified as having the highest levels of apprehension, this time with a score of 4.0 or higher; this group of high CMCAs consisted of 33 individuals.  helped more than their non-CA peers; whereas, those with high CMCA were not helped significantly more than non-CA participants. As explained previously, however, the intervention showed increases in overall preparedness for most participants, so even high CAs on video-conferencing platforms were still aided by the intervention.

CMC Self-efficacy Scores
According to the findings of Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007)  Additionally, based on the findings of Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007), it seemed that those who scored low in CMC self-efficacy would likely express significantly higher levels of preparedness after the intervention as compared to those who scored high in CMC self-efficacy. In other words, individuals with low CMC selfefficacy would appear to have more room to improve and be more open to additional support in navigating the platform than their peers who already felt confident using the video-conferencing platform. Interestingly, CMC self-efficacy was not significantly correlated (r = 0.090) to the changes in overall preparedness after the workshop. This suggests that participants who identified as high in CMCA and low in CMC self-efficacy before the workshop experienced about equal benefit from the intervention, not significantly more or less. A likely explanation for this finding may be that the high variation in CMC self-efficacy scores for CMCAs participants indicates that some may be apprehensive about items not addressed through the intervention or for reasons such as concern for appearance or lack of reliable technology. The findings of this study provided insight into what students' top student concerns are for presenting speeches online and what support they may need to be better prepared. In terms of preparedness overall for online speeches, 46% of participants (as compared to 38% who were unsure and 16% who felt unprepared) expressed feeling prepared overall for their online speeches. Those with high CA or high CMCA, however, indicated lower levels of preparedness overall and in the competency areas, further suggesting their greater need for support. Preceding the intervention, the most significant competency areas in which participants conveyed their unpreparedness were in "delivering the speech fluently and effectively using the video-conferencing platform"

DISCUSSION
(25.32%) and "creating a memorable moment for the audience through the conclusion" (25.32%). This aligns with the number one concern expressed by participants as they prepared their online speech, "delivering the speech fluently and effectively using the video-conferencing platform." On the other hand, participants felt most prepared for "choosing and organizing speech content" (63.64%) and "creating and using effective visuals engaging with the online audience," (53.85%).
At the time of this intervention in spring 2021, URI students were three semesters into pandemic learning. The introductory communication course (COM 100) in which participants were enrolled likely included varying levels of in-class instruction related to how to prepare for an online speech. The varying amounts of time instructors spent supporting their students for the switch to online rather than traditional face-to-face public speaking could account for different baselines in preparedness before the intervention. It is also important to note that the COM 100 course itself, regardless of the instructor, also includes a substantial unit on planning, preparing, and delivering a speech; however, the textbook used does not include information on virtual public speaking.
This study hypothesized that students would identify gaps in their preparedness for online public speaking, as the data implied. To aid in closing these gaps, the next phase of the research was to introduce a workshop for students to learn more about the emerging competencies for online oratory. The resulting workshop increased student preparedness across the sample with the most significant change from feeling "unsure" of their preparedness to "prepared." This result suggests that the online public speaking intervention developed for the purposes of this study may serve as an effective template for asynchronous instruction and possible collaboration with speaking centers across higher education. While not all universities have speaking centers, this type of student resource could also be adopted in writing centers as part of their menu of services. A somewhat surprising discovery was that low CMC self-efficacy scores were not significantly correlated to high CMCA scores; in fact, the data showed no relationship at all. While it seems plausible to assume that those who expressed deficiencies in their comfortability using video-conferencing platforms would be significantly more apprehensive communicating on the platform, the results of this study suggested that this is not necessarily true. This could be explained by the change in the self-efficacy measures from Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007). Rather than include computer and internet self-efficacy measures, the re-tooled measure of this study created only one selfefficacy scale for video-conferencing. Additionally, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) sought to measure CMC presence as the outcome variable of CMCA and CMC skill; whereas, this study sought to measure preparedness overall for video-conferencing presentations as an outcome variable of CMCA, CMC skill, and the targeted intervention.
As this study is situated in communication course with required use of videoconferencing, CMC presence was not a worthy variable for investigation. Students were required to use a video-conferencing platform to fulfill the assignment; therefore, their presence was not in question. The lack of significant connection between CMCA and CMC self-efficacy signifies that a more accurate measurement of self-efficacy for videoconferencing needs to be developed as part of future research.
Finally, the most significant contribution of this study was the substantiation of the hypothesis. The results revealed that most participants expressed an increase in preparedness overall for their online speech, but high communication apprehensives showed a greater increase in preparedness through the post-survey questions than their non-CA peers. Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) found that apprehension shares a negative relationship with CMC skill (efficacy and competency); thus, as demonstrated through the findings of this study, an intervention aimed at increasing CMC skill will have significant effects on apprehensives. In the case of this study, apprehensives reported higher levels of preparedness following the intervention than preceding the intervention. This finding is promising as it suggests the intervention supports students who are likely most in need of the support.
McCroskey (2009) emphasizes the importance of supporting high CA's through his later findings that high CAs may struggle professionally with lower incomes, higher turnover in occupations, and less offers of employment than low-scoring CAs (Daly & McCroskey, 1975;Falcione, McCroskey, & Daly, 1977;Richmond, 1977). As students, high CAs may underperform or even drop out due to lack of participation in class discussions, a lower likelihood to take advantage of supplemental tutoring services, and the potential lack of a cultivated social support system (McCroskey & Anderson, 1976;Scott, Yates, & Wheeless, 1975;McCroskey & Sheahan, 1978). With online learning separating students from their teachers and academic supports, high CAs need a deeperlevel of support and clearly benefit when this support is embedded directly in their courses.

Limitations of Study
The first clear limitation of this study is that data were collected using a convenience sample. The key graduate student researcher was also a COM 100 instructor at the time of the study, so students from her two sections of the course were also included in the sample. However, while convenient, COM 100 students were also an appropriate pool given the public speaking outcome of the course. Additionally, the course is required for all undergraduate students, regardless of major. following the intervention for more individualized support. However, this would be the ultimate goal and in future studies could be measured as a final question in the survey to gauge how likely participants would be to take advantage of this one-on-one support following their initial exposure through the in-class workshop.
Another noteworthy consideration of this research is the limitations created by relying on self-reporting data. Similar to the problem Brown et al. (2004) disclosed with their measure of CMC familiarity, relying on self-reported data may be problematic as previous usage, understanding of the platform, and actual competencies either require accessing actual records of usage (which violates privacy) or creating baseline tests to accurately measure the competencies and skills of users of CMC platforms. Such a baseline assessment would significantly increase participants' labor in the study but could also be somewhat subjective as Zoom is used differently depending on the context in question and particular professors' expectations.
In a more comprehensive and longitudinal study, data could be collected from the instructors or observed by the researchers by viewing initial online speeches presented by students. Then, following a similar structure to this study, the self-assessment data would be collected from students before and following an intervention. Instructors and researchers could then analyze the second online speeches to look for improvements in competencies while also collecting additional self-assessment data from students in terms of their perceived improvements and feelings of anxiety experienced while speaking.
These different data touchpoints would provide a mix of self-reported data and actual competencies as normed by instructors and researchers. Given the opportunity to examine the actual resulting speeches would provide the most accurate glimpse into true competency improvement as well as measures of experienced CMCA and CA before and after the presented speeches.

Future Research Opportunities
The data collected and analyzed in this study provides insight into how speaking centers can support the newest form of oratory as well as the benefits such support Recognizing that the chaos of the pandemic forced just-in-time innovations and changes in services, it is important to note that work similar to that discussed in this study is most likely already occurring in speaking centers across the country. In the height of the pandemic, the energies and resources of speaking center staff focused on their students to provide necessary supports for them in the time of need, leaving little time for publication in the speaking center field. Now with a moment to breathe and reflect on the successes and challenges of pandemic-forced adaptations, this study strives to kickstart the discussion within speaking center scholarship of what was learned and what will be carried forward into future speaking center services.
Another core consideration of this work, though not discussed directly, is student wellbeing and mental health. Holistic approaches to academic student support prioritize mental health concerns as they relate to students' overall success. In pandemic times, as anxiety seeped into classrooms in new ways, cognitive and emotional overload and burnout factored into the student experience possibly more than ever. Support services played an important role in triaging student need academically, remotely, and mentally.
As McCroskey (1997) has made clear through his decades of research into communication apprehension, it is vital to support the distinct needs of this population of students; coping mechanisms and increased support provide high CAs and CMCAs with necessary tools that can be carried into their professional lives. With that in mind, it is the responsibility of speaking centers to place attention on video-conferencing platforms as another context for communication apprehension, so they may provide strategies and support to those struggling to succeed in emerging computer-mediated spaces.

Start of Block: Introduction to Study
Welcome to the Speaking Center's Online Public Speaking Workshop and Research You are being asked to participate in a research study about support for online public speaking. Your individual responses will only be seen by the researchers, and the survey results are confidential. We also do not have the ability to identify who filled out which survey. This study evaluates the outcomes of an embedded intervention focused on preparing students for public speaking in digital spaces. It uses best practices for video-based presentations from the public sector to support students with their presentations on videoconferencing platforms such as Zoom and Webex, collecting pre and post data from the student workshop attendees. It also strives to understand the needs of presenters with high communication apprehension in reducing their anxiety for presenting in online platforms. This survey, including the workshop portion, will take approximately 40 mins to complete.
There are no known risks and your instructor may offer extra credit for your participation. Should you choose not to participate in the workshop and survey, an alternate assignment is embedded in the survey for you to complete. Your participation or lack of participation will have no effect on your grades, other than the extra credit you may receive. Your responses will be fully confidential. The responses may be used in research papers presented at conferences or publication in scholarly journals. Responses will be analyzed and presented in aggregate. Individual responses will not be published and names will not be collected.
The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you. You may refuse to take part in the study at any time without affecting your relationship with the investigators of this study or the University of Rhode Island (URI). Your decision will not result in any loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You have the right not to answer any single question, as well as to withdraw completely from the survey at any point during the process; additionally, you have the right to request that the researchers not use any of your responses.
You also have the right to ask questions about this research study and to have those questions answered by me before, during, or after the research. If  o I am more anxious to record myself presenting than I am to present live. (3) Q13 The following statements concern your feelings about public speaking in general. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether you strongly agree, agree, are undecided, disagree or strongly disagree.
The following statements concern your feelings about public speaking using a videoconferencing platform (Zoom, Webex, Google Hangouts/Meet). Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether you strongly agree, agree, are undecided, disagree or strongly disagree.
The following statements concern your confidence in using video-conferencing platform. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether you strongly agree, agree, are undecided, disagree or strongly disagree. Q17 Which of the following is your number one concern going into presenting this speech online?
o Engaging with the online audience (1) o Creating and using effective visuals (2) o Choosing and organizing speech content (3) o Delivering the speech fluently and effectively using video-conferencing (4) o Capturing the audience's attention through the introduction (5) o Creating a memorable moment for my audience through the conclusion (6)

Start of Block: Recorded Workshop
Next you will view a 22-minute recorded workshop, helping prepare you for your online speech. Copy the following link into another tab and begin the workshop. Once you have finished, return to this survey to answer the final questions. Hit the arrow to proceed when you are ready for the next set of questions. (Remember to copy the code below to access the recording and be sure not to close this window!) https://uriedu.zoom.us/rec/share/Xmft9ggW51M6xgxucQC4Va9FveeqLmp3IauzqUIF6hMKJwlX ojIEuyO8emUclm9_.maErhge4uknS_3ys Or use the tiny link: https://tinyurl.com/yx8u8snn Code: @+5L?Uv5  (3) ______ Delivering the speech fluently and effectively using video-conferencing (4) ______ Capturing the audience's attention through the introduction (5) ______ Creating a memorable moment for my audience through the conclusion (6) Q4 What other concerns do you have about public speaking online that have not been addressed through this workshop?

APPENDIX D (Responses from Final Qualitative Question from Post Survey)
What other concerns do you have about public speaking online that have not been addressed through this workshop?
I think this online workshop prepared me well. Personally, I only get nervous in the beginning of public speeches. After the first couple seconds my nerves usually settle and I begin to feel more confident. I believe my high school classes prepared me well for public speaking, especially my Italian class. Overall, this online workshop made me more confident and I learned new tips and tricks on how to better my public speaking skills.
I feel like it still going to be hard to get the audience attention online because I personally know I have trouble focusing in my online classes I have no real overwhelming concerns, I have just never done this before so there will be a learning curve through the first few assignments.
This is not a general statement for everyone but I feel like my speaking is not as well as it should be. I have a speak anxiety and I feel like it will show through my speech.

how to interact with the audience
Knowing what is a good length for a presentation to be finished What should we do if a technological issue interferes?
How to help control your nerves better I don't have any other concerns. I still am slightly concerned but maybe its just because I don't know what to expect. The video definitely helped a lot though I am more confident than I was before How to not need to take a deep breath during the speech Simply just conquering public speaking nerves.
One concern that I have is forgetting what I am going to talk about once one the stage or presenting on video.
What to do if you don't have a power point